yes or no: should Ken Ham be given $18 mill tourist tax break for Noah Ark Park?

[Blake]

Last month, Kentucky’s tourism board announced that the Noah’s Ark park wouldn’t be eligible for an $18 million tourism tax break because Answers In Genesis intends to use the site to proseletize and refuses to promise not to discriminate based on religion in its hiring. The board noted that “[s]tate tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion," but Ham cried persecution, complaining that Kentucky had violated his “fundamental rights” by witholding the tax break. -

See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-demands-taxpayers-pay-one-greatest-evangelist-outreaches-our-day#sthash.g9a4QM0g.dpuf

I'm leaning no but I'm thinking he might have a slightly legitimate gripe.

[DisAsTerBot]

a tax break is not a "fundamental right".

[DisAsTerBot]

he's free to build it on his own dime

[Blake]

Courts have rules that churches getting tax exempt status is a fundamental right. Not sure if he's arguing that he's a church though.

[boutons_deux]

"Ham cried persecution"

:lol that's automatic with these venal Bible humpers. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm pretty sure a "tourist tax break" is different than being a 401 non profit

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure a "tourist tax break" is different than being a 401 non profit

Yeah it looks like this is a state amusement park tax break issue and has zero to do with their tax status.

They apparently were initially granted the breaks but were denied when it became known that they were going to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religious background.

lol Kentucky

[RandomGuy]

I'm leaning no but I'm thinking he might have a slightly legitimate gripe.

The issue is whether or not he intends to discriminate based on religion. Can't give public funds to people who do.

The only people allowed to discriminate in hiring based on religion are actual churches. This is obviously a for-profit endeavor, and can't get a "church" exemption.

[boutons_deux]

Ken Ham: Government Persecuting Us By Not Providing Taxpayer Funding To Creationist Theme Park

Creationist leader Ken Ham is incensed that the state of Kentucky is supposedly abridging his organization’s “fundamental rights” (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationist-group-fights-its-fundamental-rights-18-million-tax-incentives)by declining to provide around $18 million in tax incentives to his Noah’s Ark theme park. The park is a planned addition to Ham’s Creation Museum and is intended to be, according to Ham (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-demands-taxpayers-pay-one-greatest-evangelist-outreaches-our-day), “one of the greatest evangelist outreaches of our day.”

Since Ham’s group plans to discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices, it is no surprise that it won’t get public funds. But Ham claims that he has a “right” to receive taxpayer money and has filed a lawsuit (https://answersingenesis.org/religious-freedom/aig-file-discrimination-suit-against-kentucky/) against Kentucky, insisting that his organization, Answers in Genesis, is the real victim of discrimination.

He took his case to “Washington Watch (http://www.frc.org/wwlivewithtonyperkins/ken-ham-gov-mike-huckabee-general-boykin)” yesterday, where he told host Tony Perkins that Kentucky’s decision somehow violates his organization's right to the freedom of speech: “Anyone who wants to have freedom of speech in this nation, freedom of religion, free exercise of religion, needs to stand with us as we do this because that is what we are standing for.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-government-persecuting-us-not-providing-taxpayer-funding-creationist-theme-park

[Aztecfan03]

No he does not deserve tax breaks. that would be stupid.

[boutons_deux]

these fucking Christian Bible humpers, evangelists think they are ENTITLED to tax payer money.

they should get their Christians to pay for their own silly fantasy land.

[TheSanityAnnex]

these fucking ____________________ think they are ENTITLED to tax payer money.

they should get their _____________ to pay for their own _______________.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[Aztecfan03]

So true TSA. So true.

[boutons_deux]

:lol

TB :lol stalkin and nippin at The Great Boutons' ankles

[TeyshaBlue]

Still thinking about me? Weird.

[RandomGuy]

(government hand outs r bad, tweak at boutons)

well played.

Big point is that Ham wants to be a religious organization, able to reject people on the basis of faith... but still wants the handout from the government, which has a constitutional obligation not to give him funds if he does that.

Ham is a foreigner with no respect for the US constitution, or our traditions. He just wants the cash.

[pgardn]

Yet another example of a topic that has so many levels of government head scratching. What part of the economy/society to subsidize/give tax breaks/fund in order to create a "healthy" society?

Does the great boots think San Antonio tax payers should fund a little bit of the San Antonio Sympony's costs? Public Libraries? Parks? Not everyone in San Antonio uses these...

How about the State and roads? Some clearly benefit business, but the public at large does use them. Where do we build that exit ramp; what land owner just struck it rich due to highway traffic coming off?

[boutons_deux]

"What part of the economy/society to subsidize/give tax breaks/fund in order to create a "healthy" society"

straw man. The questions are LEGAL separation of church and state, enforcement of non-discrimination LAW.

SA symphony, libraries, are non-profit, and violate no laws. If SA people don't want them, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.

roads are a non-profit public utility. If people don't want roads, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.

pgarden is VERY confused.

btw, I don't want my taxpayer dollars financing $700B/year MIC, nor Iraq, Afghanistan wars, nor US black ops in 170 countries, but there are no politicians presented who will stop all that Imperial shit and corporate welfare. Nor do I want my property taxes handed to the shitty, discriminating Christian charters schools, non-profits that out-source the bulk of their operations to FOR-profit companies.

[pgardn]

"What part of the economy/society to subsidize/give tax breaks/fund in order to create a "healthy" society"

straw man. The questions are LEGAL separation of church and state, enforcement of non-discrimination LAW.

SA symphony, libraries, are non-profit, and violate no laws. If SA people don't want them, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.

roads are a non-profit public utility. If people don't want roads, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.

pgarden is VERY confused.

btw, I don't want my taxpayer dollars financing $700B/year MIC, nor Iraq, Afghanistan wars, nor US black ops in 170 countries, but there are no politicians presented who will stop all that Imperial shit and corporate welfare. Nor do I want my property taxes handed to the shitty, discriminating Christian charters schools, non-profits that out-source the bulk of their operations to FOR-profit companies.






Now for the slappn.

The OP question is obviously a slam dunk. Republicans do exactly the same things when talking about funding, science, for example. The strategy is to take the most obvious case of misuse of funding/tax cuts/subsidies and present this as staus quo.

The LARGER question, which I presented, is that governments decide what parts of a working society should be funded, etc... There is no strawman, it's a very pertinent, legitimate dilemma. But because you are so caught up in biased thought, you can't see the bigger picture. The non profit part is obvious, yet abused.

Roads to South Texas fracking rigs should be funded by the public because the public uses some of these roads on occasion? The roads torn up by fracking trucks through small towns should be rebuilt by public funds because they are mainly used by the town?

Honestly boots, your haze of hate prohibits you from seeing larger questions. Elected officials often do not even state platforms concerning specific situations that arise. Cop out.

So what about the Symphony boots? You want 1/12 of a penny tax to keep it alive? Do you think any part of government should be involved in funding cultural aspects of a society? On and on...

[Blake]

Now for the slappn.

The OP question is obviously a slam dunk.

so uh..is that a yes or a no?

[pgardn]

so uh..is that a yes or a no?

A huge no. Really big font no.

[boutons_deux]

Now for the slappn.

The OP question is obviously a slam dunk. Republicans do exactly the same things when talking about funding, science, for example. The strategy is to take the most obvious case of misuse of funding/tax cuts/subsidies and present this as staus quo.

The LARGER question, which I presented, is that governments decide what parts of a working society should be funded, etc... There is no strawman, it's a very pertinent, legitimate dilemma. But because you are so caught up in biased thought, you can't see the bigger picture. The non profit part is obvious, yet abused.

Roads to South Texas fracking rigs should be funded by the public because the public uses some of these roads on occasion? The roads torn up by fracking trucks through small towns should be rebuilt by public funds because they are mainly used by the town?

Honestly boots, your haze of hate prohibits you from seeing larger questions. Elected officials often do not even state platforms concerning specific situations that arise. Cop out.

So what about the Symphony boots? You want 1/12 of a penny tax to keep it alive? Do you think any part of government should be involved in funding cultural aspects of a society? On and on...

honestly, pgarden, you're TOTALLY full of shit and confused.

taxpayer roads torn up by incremental heavy traffic to support fracking should be paid by the "users", but this is oily, corrupt TX so taxpayers are at BigOil's mercy and eat all BigOil's external costs, which includes depleted, poisoned ground water and air.

this is gerrymandered, corrupt Kock-ified/VRWC TX, so of course candidates won't run on "make BigOil pay"

[pgardn]

honestly, pgarden, you're TOTALLY full of shit and confused.

taxpayer roads torn up by incremental heavy traffic to support fracking should be paid by the "users", but this is oily, corrupt TX so taxpayers are at BigOil's mercy and eat all BigOil's external costs, which includes depleted, poisoned ground water and air.

this is gerrymandered, corrupt Kock-ified/VRWC TX, so of course candidates won't run on "make BigOil pay"

You posted roads were a non profit public utility? And now you want big oil to pay... Which I happen to agree with.
But You pick and choose based on your political preferences.

So what about govt. paying for cultural projects? Many people think this should be privately funded unless it fits their politics. War memorials, old Civil war mansions, Iconic architecture, historic art museums...

But of course this is all so easy for you.

[boutons_deux]

You posted roads were a non profit public utility? And now you want big oil to pay... Which I happen to agree with.
But You pick and choose based on your political preferences.

So what about govt. paying for cultural projects? Many people think this should be privately funded unless it fits their politics. War memorials, old Civil war mansions, Iconic architecture, historic art museums...

But of course this is all so easy for you.

I pick and choose AGAINST all the VRWC/Repug/tea bagger shit fucking up America.

where have I said the mother frackers shouldn't pay for tearing up tax payers' roads?

US tax code encourages private donations to non-profits like cultural orgs, aka, tax expenditures (by taxpayers).

[boutons_deux]

Radical Ruling: Judge Approves Aid Package For Ky. ‘Ark Park’

Late yesterday afternoon, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2016/01/26/noahs-ark-park-wins-battle-tax-incentives/79336296/) that creationist Ken Ham’s controversial “Ark Park” has a legal and constitutional right to receive a package of tax incentives from the state and, thus, the taxpayers.

Ham’s fundamentalist Christian ministry, Answers in Genesis (AiG), promotes creationism and has openly stated that it plans to use the attraction, formally known as Ark Encounter – a theme park built around a large rendition of Noah’s Ark – to evangelize visitors. AiG also plans to restrict hiring to right-wing Christians who are willing to sign its statement of faith.

In light of these religious requirements, Kentucky officials, who were at first enthusiastic about the project because they thought it might bring jobs to economically distressed Grant County, became wary and decided not to grant $18 million in tax incentives to the project. Ham sued, arguing that his project had been the victim of discrimination.
U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that the tax-incentive program is religiously neutral and that Ark Encounter must be permitted to take part.

Van Tatenhove misses the point. The incentive program may be neutral, but the Ark Park is not. Its purpose is to convince people that AiG’s interpretation of the Bible is correct and that they should adopt it.

Americans United has said repeatedly that Ham and AiG have every right to promote their religious views, and that includes the right to buy land and build a copy of what Ham believes is Noah’s Ark. But they must pay for this themselves. Ham and his allies should have no right to compel the taxpayers, even indirectly, to support their evangelistic efforts.

Gregory M. Lipper, AU’s senior litigation counsel, has read and analyzed Van Tatenhove’s opinion. Lipper says the judge’s opinion all but ignores a 2004 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court (Locke v. Davey), which gives states the discretion to exclude religious programs from otherwise neutral funding schemes.

What’s especially troubling about all of this is the larger trend it represents. For more than 200 years, the practice in the United States was for religious groups to pay their own way. Their buildings, programs and evangelistic efforts were underwritten by the men and women sitting in the pews, not the taxpayers at large.

In the 1980s, a flock of right-wing judicial activists on the courts began to erode that principle, a tendency that even infiltrated the U.S. Supreme Court. Later this year, the high court will hear a case (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-over-separation-of-church-and-state/2016/01/15/c59e8b1e-bbd1-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html) from Missouri concerning a church that wants the taxpayers to pay for surfacing of its playground. The court may say this is permissible because a church playground supposedly does not have a religious use.

But every dime a church saves by turning to the government for help to pay for something “secular” is one more dime it can use to evangelize and promote religion. AU’s view on this is clear: Houses of worship should pay forall of their projects, whether it is a new furnace or a vacation Bible camp, with donations given freely and voluntarily; they should never rely on the public purse.


https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/radical-ruling-judge-approves-aid-package-for-ky-ark-park